Mate for such a great debater you do not half get wound up when you make silly statements, and even resort to replying for me!

You said Locky would be lucky to play reserve rugby.

I highlighted 2 players in Mathers and Cassidy who played first team rugby in the backrow in 94 who most sensible posters without an anti Locky agenda as they have been shown up after years of slating him, would not rate as highly as Locky. As these lads played first team in 94 in the secondrow how would Locky "be lucky to play in the reserves?" genuine question.

Can i expect an answer without the keyboard warrior response or shall i just await the usual straw clutching abuse of my spelling? Either way hardly traits of one who considers himself such a great debater.

Last edited by jonh on Fri May 29, 2009 10:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Mate for such a great debater you do not half get wound up when you make silly statements, and even resort to replying for me!

You said Locky would be lucky to play reserve rugby.

I highlighted 2 players in Mathers and Cassidy who played first team rugby in the backrow in 94 who most sensible posters without an anti Locky agenda as they have been shown up after years of slating him, would not rate as highly as Locky. As these lads played first team in 94 in the secondrow how would Locky "be lucky to play in the reserves?" genuine question.

Can i expect an answer without the keyboard warrior response or shall i just await the usual straw clutching abuse of my spelling? Either way hardly traits of one who considers himself such a great debater.

Ok so you would have Lockers over Cassidy.

.....................fine.

I can only assume you were too young to appreciate Cassidy.

But hey, it's a free country. You are entitled to your opinon.

The Communist Cap - dragging down success and aspiration to the levels of those who cba.

Mate for such a great debater you do not half get wound up when you make silly statements, and even resort to replying for me!

You said Locky would be lucky to play reserve rugby.

I highlighted 2 players in Mathers and Cassidy who played first team rugby in the backrow in 94 who most sensible posters without an anti Locky agenda as they have been shown up after years of slating him, would not rate as highly as Locky. As these lads played first team in 94 in the secondrow how would Locky "be lucky to play in the reserves?" genuine question.

Can i expect an answer without the keyboard warrior response or shall i just await the usual straw clutching abuse of my spelling? Either way hardly traits of one who considers himself such a great debater.

I'm a big supporter of Lockers. I feel very sorry for the guy. He's wearing a shirt that two of the greatest players in modern RL have worn, the incomparable Hanley and the man who carried our entire team for a decade, Andy Farrell.

My view is that Lockers isn't up to the standard of Hanley or Farrell. That's not much of a criticism. Since Jason Robinson left for RU only KFC (when fit) has been able to play at a similar level to those two. Hanley and Farrell are immense figures in RL terms. Talk about massive boots to fill. When you factor in the other great players that have played LF for Wigan in the modern era, e.g. Goodway and Clarke, and the awesome legends that have been club captain - leaders like Edwards and Bell - you have to feel sorry for the guy, with the lack of quality in the current side.

That said, how good is Lockers? Better than Cassidy in my book. Mick Cassidy was a great tackler and an underrated player but Lockers is a much classier player. Is Lockers as good as Clarke or Goodway? Possibly not but to be fair to the lad, with the exception of Hock the pack he is leading is really poor compared with the great forward packs of the late 80s and early 90s. With better players around him he would, I'm sure, look a better player. Only Faz could carry this current mediocre pack and he was a once in a lifetime player.

Last edited by Deano G on Fri May 29, 2009 11:03 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Badwanger wrote:

IMO, Sculthorpe at his peak was better than Hanley was at his.

nickmanator wrote:

billy boston in todays game might pinch a spot bringin the cone on and that bein kind

robbierotten wrote:

Imo Sam Tomkins is a very poor mans Danny Brough he is just a average player getting bigged up by the idiots who comentate on sky.

I just don't think he is good enough, and I CERTAINLY don't think he is as good as most on this forum/in RL circles generally feel.

I am clearly opening myself up to all sorts of "So you don't think he's as good as former/present GB coaches etc etc" but I call it as I see it.

Frankly it's a sad indictment of our game that Locky is considered a candidate for the GB/England 13 shirt, given the quality of the past incumbents.

I say again, if he was born in Sydney, we would never have heard of him.

O'Loughlin is an absolutely class player, shown by the step up he makes with better players around him at international level. To say that he's not good enough is an absolutely ludicrous statement, and i doubt "most people" would agree with you.

I just don't think he is good enough, and I CERTAINLY don't think he is as good as most on this forum/in RL circles generally feel.

I am clearly opening myself up to all sorts of "So you don't think he's as good as former/present GB coaches etc etc" but I call it as I see it.

Frankly it's a sad indictment of our game that Locky is considered a candidate for the GB/England 13 shirt, given the quality of the past incumbents.

I say again, if he was born in Sydney, we would never have heard of him.

So you think he would be lucky to play in the reserves in 94?

What did Cassidy offer that Locky does not and visa versa that in your opinion makes him a superior player?

Nice to see you have reigned in the keyboard warrior stuff by the way Henry Low would be proud although you did fall to your second trademark "help line" trying to use age to discredit someone who does not agree with you, which is another sign of desperation.

Quick Reply

All views expressed are those of the author and not necessarily those of the RLFANS.COM or it's subsites.

Whilst every effort is made to ensure that news stories, articles and images are correct, we cannot be held responsible for errors. However, if you feel any material on this website is copyrighted or incorrect in any way please contact us using the link at the top of the page so we can remove it or negotiate copyright permission.

RLFANS.COM, the owners of this website, is not responsible for the content of its sub-sites or posts, please email the author of this sub-site or post if you feel you find an article offensive or of a choice nature that you disagree with.